That would be great! I have a couple of questions that may help me better prepare for this meeting: 1) In the proposal we assume the arrival of a new consensus as a discrete event. Does this assumption match current tor implementation, or is it more like "having at least X relay descriptors available"? What is the entrypoint for taking actions after we receive a new consensus? Keep in mind we refer to "receiving a new consensus" meaning "the list of guards has changed", they might be different things. We are interested in reacting to changes to the "list of guards". 2) Once we have a guard_t, how can we know if it "is present in the latest consensus"? We found the property `bad_since` but it seems to have a different semantics: when the guard was considered "nonfunctional, unlisted, excluded, or otherwise nonusable" (according to `ENTRY_GUARD_REMOVE_AFTER` description). We also found `entry_guard_set_status` and how it consider a guard to be unlisted: a failure to find a node with the same identity as the guard using node_get_by_id(). At this point, my understanding is whatever is "in the consensus" can be found by node_get_by_id() and `bad_since` can be used as an additional data for decision making. Is this correct? 3) Current tor implementation seems to prefer handling lists of node_t rather than entry_guard_t, is there a reason for this? The proposal implementation currently manipulate lists of entry_guard_t but when we need to call functions in existing tor code (node_sl_choose_by_bandwidth) we need to convert from guard do node, using node_get_by_id(). As a consequence, if I'm correct about 2, this will automatically filter out unlisted guards. On 3/18/16 04:19, George Kadianakis wrote: > Hello there, > > seems like the prop259 algorithm has kind of stabilized and you guys have > jumped into implementation. That's great! > > A small problem in this process is that I'm probably the only person in Tor who > understands the new algorithm right now. We could fix this by doing a small > proposal IRC meeting where you guys could summarize the current state of the > algorithm, as well as provide some simulation results. I think that folks like > Nick, Mike and isis could provide valuable feedback at this point. > > Would you guys be interested in something like this? I'm fine with doing it > next week at some point. Maybe Wednesday or Thursday? Maybe at 15:00 UTC? > Let me know if that's convenient for you. > > Cheers! > -- *Reinaldo de Souza Jr* | Software Developer *Thought*Works Brasil GPG: E0FD 0487 5CAC 4200 EF25 098A 9FA3 789F 0615 5999
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev